[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2ddbb72-30a8-44da-b761-876b2d37567e@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 12:12:53 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org, robin.clark@....qualcomm.com,
hanguidong02@...il.com, quic_c_gdjako@...cinc.com,
dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com, driver-core@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: do not register driver in probe()
On 2026-01-22 11:52 am, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu Jan 22, 2026 at 10:21 AM CET, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
>> The boot lockup was visible also on the NXP LX2160ARDB. This patch fixes
>> it.
>
> Interesting, this means that qcom_smmu_impl_init() must be called on this
> machine, is this expected?
Yup, same as on the Juno boards and probably others - an Arm SMMU is
present, which means if ARM_SMMU_QCOM is enabled then
arm_smmu_impl_init() is going to offer it to ask "hey, is this one of
yours that you might want to do something with based on your extensive
and complicated match list that we don't want to maintain in the common
impl code?", wherein qcom_smmu_impl_init() *should* return without doing
anything at all as it's not a match...
Cheers,
Robin.
>
>> Tested-by: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com> #LX2160ARDB
>
> Thanks for testing!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists